If this is your first visit, be sure to
check out the FAQ by clicking the
link above. You may have to register
before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages,
select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

Please review the Forum Rules frequently as we are constantly trying to improve the forum for our members and visitors.

"[A.] In 2010, the Georgia legislature, apparently concerned that the carrying of [knives and handguns] and long guns would likely present an unreasonable risk of harm to people who assemble in eight specific locations [including "place[s] of worship”], enacted a statute barring the unrestricted carrying of weapons or long guns in those locations. This statutory bar does not apply, however, to a [concealed carry] license holder if, on arriving at one of the eight locations, such person “approaches security or management personnel upon arrival … and notifies such security or management personnel of the presence of the weapon or long gun and explicitly follows the security or management personnel’s direction for removing, securing, storing, or temporarily surrendering such weapon or long gun.” The refusal to approach security or management personnel or to comply with management’s direction is a misdemeanor….
"[B.] We conclude that the Amended Complaint fails to state a Free Exercise Clause challenge because Plaintiffs omit any factual matter showing how the Carry Law burdens a sincerely held religious belief. Plaintiffs argue that such an allegation is unnecessary if a law is subject to strict scrutiny because it is not neutral or generally applicable. The problem with that argument is that it misconstrues clear, well-established First Amendment precedent from both the Supreme Court and this court….

"[P]roperty law, tort law, and criminal law provide the canvas on which our Founding Fathers drafted the Second Amendment. A clear grasp of this background illustrates that the pre-existing right codified in the Second Amendment does not include protection for a right to carry a firearm in a place of worship against the owner’s wishes. Quite simply, there is no constitutional infirmity when a private property owner exercises his, her, or its — in the case of a place of worship — right to control who may enter, and whether that invited guest can be armed and the State vindicates that right. This situation, being a likely application of the Carry Law, illustrates that Plaintiffs cannot show that all or most applications of the Carry Law are unconstitutional. See United States v. Salerno."

This strikes me as correct. I can imagine an Establishment Clause argument that the law is unconstitutional because it singles out “place[s] of worship” for a special rule that doesn’t apply to comparable secular institutions. Given the Court’s unclear rule related to religion-specific laws, it’s not clear how such an argument would fare, but my sense is that it would probably lose, on the theory that the government has an interest in protecting religious worship — whether or not one agrees that such laws ultimately do end up protecting religious worship — that justifies enacting such special rules. (A similar theory has been used by lower courts to uphold special laws and sentencing enhancements for attacks on places of worship.) In any event, though, this does not seem to be the argument challengers made.

It seems to me that the court tried very hard to focus the decision on private property rights as opposed to dealing with the limits or extent of either First or Second Amendment rights. I am not sure I totally agree with their approach, which seemed to be that the churches make the ultimate decision as opposed to whether or not the enacted law violates a right.

Private property owners always had the option of saying they did not want firearms carried (openly, discretely, or in locked shipping containers) on their property. There was no need to create a separate law giving that power/ability to them - and, yes, I know that laws do not give powers but impose limits.

The law in question interjects - IMNSHO - the government into the discussion between the church through its property owners and the individual by creating standards which the individual must follow/steps the individual must comply with. No longer is the conversation between the individual and their church - the state now has a voice in the matter of how church and parishioner interact. To me this becomes a state-imposed restriction on how the individual expresses his religion. The issue of whether or not the carrying of a handgun is a tenent of belief or not is a red herring. And if they had honestly followed that line they should have come to the conclusion that all religions insist that self defense is a central expression of the religious belief. (Yes, some religions exalt those who martyr themselves for the sake of the religion, but none require it as a condition of expressing adherence.)

Up until the passage of the law churches, through their property owners, could control whether or not a person carried a firearm on that private property. The law only created a specific set of actions the parishioner must follow in seeking the permission of the private property owner - no more. The state criminalized the failure to follow these imposed steps, not the carrying of firearms at a worship service.

I'm not faulting the attornies for Georgia Carry for how this case was decided. I'm just sharing an opinion on why I think the outcome might have been different if the focus of the challenge was more along the lines suggested above.

The decision makes me realize again how fortunate I am here in Virginia where I am only constrained from carrying a weapon to a worship service for frivolous reasons - if my reason is "good and sufficient" I'm good to go. Of course, I still must comply with any decision of the private property owner. The state stuck its nose in only so far as to tell me to be serious about carrying at a worship service.

Good luck, Georgia.

stay safe.

"He'll regret it to his dying day....if ever he lives that long."----The Quiet Man

Because stupidity isn't a race, and everybody can win.

"No matter how much contempt you have for the media in all this, you don't have enough"
----Allahpundit

The Georgia General Assembly has NO Right to Govern, Incroach upon, or otherwise Interfere with another Persons' Free Use of Their Private Property.

Interestingly though, The General Assembly does just that under Georgia Code Section 16-11-127(b)(4) AND Georgia Code Section 16-11-127(b)(6).

It is within My Opinion that Bar Owners and Church Congregations are of Competance to Decide for Themselves, whether or not They Wish to Allow or Disallow Firearms and other Weapons, on Their Property or upon Their Premises.

It is VERY MUCH a Private Property Issue as it is a Second Amendment Issue, but The Federal Appeals Court got it Wrong to say that The Georgia Carry Organization was Trying to Mandate that Private Property Owners had to 'give-up' Private Property Rights in Exchange for Gun Rights upon The Request of The Gun Owner.

I am so happy I was raised in Ky. We don't have these ridiculous laws, and I can carry on Private property even if the place is posted. Of course if the owner or manager asks me to leave I must leave, but concealed is concealed, and I carry concealed the majority of the time. The state doesn't try sticking its nose where it doesn't belong when it comes to Gun rights. I hope you folks in Georgia can have this law removed, or amended.

Last edited by KYGlockster; 07-26-2012 at 10:06 PM.

"I never in my life seen a Kentuckian without a gun..."-Andrew Jackson

"Guard with jealous attention the public liberty. Suspect every one who approaches that jewel. Unfortunately, nothing will preserve it but downright force. Whenever you give up that force, you are ruined."-Patrick Henry; speaking of protecting the rights of an armed citizenry.

"Be not intimidated ... nor suffer yourselves to be wheedled out of your Liberties by any pretense of Politeness, Delicacy, or Decency. These, as they are often used, are but three different names for Hypocrisy, Chicanery, and Cowardice." - John Adams

i'm a bit confused. it looks like you can carry in a church without the law applying.but "you must contact the management, or that is a misdemeanor.

it does seem like the law is saying you can carry as long as the church doesn't mind. please correct me if i am wrong

You have it correctly, so long as you are the holder of a concealed carry license and upon arrival you notify the appropriately designated security or management personnel of the presence of the concealed weapon or long gun and explicitly follow the security or management personnel’s direction for removing, securing, storing, or temporarily surrendering such weapon or long gun. Or, possibly, their standing mute on issuing any such direction, which I would guess would be tantamount to acceptance of your carrying concealed.

The refusal to approach security or management personnel or to comply with management’s direction is a misdemeanor.

As you can see, mark5019 and I disagree on the point. I am relying on a reading of the law as it is written, with the addition of a SWAG about what it would mean if security/management either said nothing or said something along the lines of "OK" or "Bless you" or "There are empty seats in the first row."

stay safe.

"He'll regret it to his dying day....if ever he lives that long."----The Quiet Man

Because stupidity isn't a race, and everybody can win.

"No matter how much contempt you have for the media in all this, you don't have enough"
----Allahpundit

You have it correctly, so long as you are the holder of a concealed carry license and upon arrival you notify the appropriately designated security or management personnel of the presence of the concealed weapon or long gun and explicitly follow the security or management personnel’s direction for removing, securing, storing, or temporarily surrendering such weapon or long gun. Or, possibly, their standing mute on issuing any such direction, which I would guess would be tantamount to acceptance of your carrying concealed.

The refusal to approach security or management personnel or to comply with management’s direction is a misdemeanor.

As you can see, mark5019 and I disagree on the point. I am relying on a reading of the law as it is written, with the addition of a SWAG about what it would mean if security/management either said nothing or said something along the lines of "OK" or "Bless you" or "There are empty seats in the first row."

You have it correctly, so long as you are the holder of a concealed carry license and upon arrival you notify the appropriately designated security or management personnel of the presence of the concealed weapon or long gun and explicitly follow the security or management personnel’s direction for removing, securing, storing, or temporarily surrendering such weapon or long gun. Or, possibly, their standing mute on issuing any such direction, which I would guess would be tantamount to acceptance of your carrying concealed.

The refusal to approach security or management personnel or to comply with management’s direction is a misdemeanor.

As you can see, mark5019 and I disagree on the point. I am relying on a reading of the law as it is written, with the addition of a SWAG about what it would mean if security/management either said nothing or said something along the lines of "OK" or "Bless you" or "There are empty seats in the first row."

stay safe.

that is what the state argued...but that is not what the law says. only bars have the exemption or asking permission...

"Be not intimidated ... nor suffer yourselves to be wheedled out of your Liberties by any pretense of Politeness, Delicacy, or Decency. These, as they are often used, are but three different names for Hypocrisy, Chicanery, and Cowardice." - John Adams